"America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion"

Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life

Please visit the new site of http://www.prolifewarrior.com/ and join in the fun of throwing cyber punches at those who believe 'fetuses' are not people

Wednesday, February 24, 2010


George Offerman

There have been many allegations made concerning the war over the name Operation Rescue, and much of the contention seems to revolve around what Operation Rescue is, its mission, and who has the ‘God given right” to use this well known moniker. Currently, Troy Newman has the trademark on the name, and is making a claim that he has been using this name since 1991. Mr. Newman has also made the claim that he has ‘rebuilt’ OR to national prominence, and is following on the original ‘vision’ of what OR is and what made it so formidable.

Since this claim is made, it is fair to take a look at this organization and do a compare /contrast of what it was and what it currently is, and if in fact if it is staying true to the original vision of the founder Randall Terry. The sources of information used will be the book wrath Of Angels, information off of both websites, operationrescuetheft, and Mr. Newman’s website, newsletters from OR/ORW and fundraising letters, as well as personal testimony and experiences of those who have known both men for many years.

Operation Rescue was the brainchild of Randall Terry in1986 and he became very active in his hometown of Binghamton, NY. Relatively unknown, he nonetheless became prominent in the movement in short order, and built upon the legacy of people like John Ryan, John O’Keefe and Joan Andrews Bell. Mr. Terry was able to do what no one else was able to do before, and that was to mobilize thousands against the child killers. Mr. Terry called this movement Operation Rescue, and this movement became nationally prominent from 1987 to 1994, until the Clinton Administration, lead by Janet Reno, passed and used the FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances) mainly to deter the winning strategy of Operation Rescue. This was Mr. Terry’s impact on the pro life movement, and the lists below are the highlights of Operation Rescue, under its founder and at its pinnacle.

- Took activism to a new level by having thousands in front of multiple abortuaries in several cities simultaneously.

- 70,000 arrests over the span of 1987-1993, the most ever recorded in national history for a non violent movement.

- 40 + Affiliate offices throughout the country.

- Linked the gospel and scriptures to action and able to mobilize the evangelical world to the movement

- Changed the way law enforcement dealt with the large number of non violent protestors.

- FACE law enacted as a direct result of OR tactics, changing national laws.

- Politicians being held accountable for their pro life stances, and fearing rejection by this organization if wayward in their word.

This was the mission and the goals of Operation Rescue as envisioned by its founder Randall Terry, and it was very successful until the myriad of law suits by planned parenthood and others, as well as the FACE law, effectively broke the back of the movement. Mr. Terry saw this organization as a national movement; with thousands of pro lifers all over the United States fighting in their communities and operating under the Moniker of Operation Rescue (name your city/state). There was no issue concerning trademarks, as everyone at the time was very aware of who started the movement and who was responsible for the exponential growth.

Mr. Terry owned the name Operation Rescue. Operation Rescue was the title of his book. Operation rescue never was a not for profit corporation with a board. Why not, you ask? It was Mr. Terry’s intention to shield these leaders by having a loose association, and not having the organization in a formal structure, in which others could have been sued, and lose everything, as Mr. Terry has.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Newman’s name is not mentioned anywhere in the history of Operation Rescue during its heyday, nor does it appear he was involved in the movement in at least any leadership role until much later.

The name of Operation Rescue was used by many people; it was understood that it was permissible to use this moniker by adding a city or state behind it, such as Operation Rescue Boston, or Rev. Flip Benham’s Operation Save America. In fact, Mr. Terry helped Rev. Tucci start Operation Rescue National. Operation Rescue has not been used by anyone other than Randall Terry, as a stand alone name until Mr. Newman dropped the West from the name of his California organization in 2007. The majority of pro lifers know that Operation Rescue is associated with Randall Terry, and most believe that Operation Rescue has always been on the cutting edge of the pro life movement, attracting people from all over the country to do things they did not know they were capable of doing. Operation Rescue under Randall Terry was also radical, in that it caused a crisis of consciousness and brought the issue of legalized child killing front and center. OR could not be ignored by the mainstream media or pundits, and no one ever knew what OR would be up to next, but whatever it did, it made national, and sometimes international news.

Now, consider the organization that brands itself Operation Rescue today, and see if it meets the criteria and ‘national standing’ that Mr. Newman claims. Mr. Newman moved headquarters of what was known as Operation Rescue West to Wichita, Kansas in 2002 to directly challenge and close the Women’s Health Care Services, and land George Tiller in jail. For the past 7 + years, this has been the main thrust of Mr. Newman’s energies and that of the Wichita organization. During this time, Mr. Newman also built up a fleet of truth trucks, and has had some success with them. I contributed thousands of dollars to Mr. Newman’s efforts over many years, as well as influencing others to do the same.

Mr Newman’s efforts have been commendable. But the question must be asked: do his efforts meet the criteria and purpose of Operation Rescue, as envisioned by its founder, and those who followed Mr. Terry in the leadership? Mr. Newman’s Wichita organization is focused on a local to regional matter, with the main focus being George Tiller, as evidenced by nearly all of the newsletters and fund raising letters sent out over the past 7 + years. Very little to nothing was mentioned about civil disobedience on a large national scale, nor was there ever a plan in place in which people felt like they could get behind this organization believing it would lead to the overturning of Roe and Doe.

This is what the Mr. Newman’s organization in Wichita has accomplished up until now. The claim to have built the organization back up to its ‘national prominence’ can be tested by looking at the fruits of this organization.

- Little evidence or news stories supporting any efforts at protests at multiple locations simultaneously.

- Very few recorded arrests during the time span of 1999-2010

- Wichita is the only office location in the country with 4 staff and no affiliates.

- Virtual protests instead of actual protests promoted.

- Has made virtually no national news in 7 + years other than the reported association with Roeder after the Tiller shooting.

- Have influenced local and Kansas laws, but not national legislation.

- Politicians do not fear this organization or any other current pro life organization and are not concerned about their endorsements or reprimand.

- No written action plan for ending legalized child killing.

These are just some of the differences in considering Operation Rescue (Randall Terry) as it was at its inception, and what Mr. Newman is doing with the name. There is a stark contrast to the activities and levels of accomplishments. It is apparent that Mr. Newman’s Wichita organization is benefiting from the use of the name Operation Rescue, as it has built in credibility and is nationally known, but not because of their efforts. It is interesting that Mr. Newman decided to trademark the name of another man’s labor, efforts and sacrifices instead of focusing on his own brand of activism, and standing on his own accomplishments.

In considering whether the Operation Rescue ‘brand’ is tarnished, as many anti lifers, and some pro lifers believe, it is really incumbent upon the beholder to make this determination. If one considers the regional efforts and successes of Mr. Newman and company and if this is applied and packaged as a national movement, then the answer is yes, it is tainted and out of date. If Mr. Newman’s efforts are seen in the light of a regional affiliate of a larger vibrant organization, then the answer would have to be that the OR brand is alive and well.

It would seem if one looks at the evidence provided, and does some research, it would become very apparent that Mr. Newman’s accomplishments, although very formidable and positive, do not in any way shape or form, represent a national organization that is on the cutting edge of ending legalized child killing, as it is not being duplicated anywhere. Duplication is what a national organization has if it is to be effective and effect change in society. Mr. Newman should drop the Operation Rescue moniker, as he does not represent what Operation Rescue is, and should name his organization in alignment with his own accomplishments.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010


George Offerman

Life Site News ran a full transcript of their interview with Boston’s Cardinal O’Mally on the question of denying communion to pro abort politicians who claim to be Catholic. The following is the transcript as appears on the LSN site.

WASHINGTON, DC, February 18, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The full transcript of LSN's January 2010 conversation with Boston's Cardinal Sean O'Malley on denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians is as follows:
LSN: “A number of Catholics are concerned about Catholics who are pro-abortion and in politics. Some have said the bishops have to deny them communion. But in your estimation, what is exactly is the appropriate pastoral response? How should Catholics understand this?”

O’Malley: “Well I think that the only way that that solution should be invoked is if there were a large catechesis or if it was universal for the whole Church. You can’t have people doing things in one parish and another, you would only divide the Church hopelessly.”
[Although turning away at an aide's urging to leave the Basilica, the Cardinal returned to clarify that he was concerned about how to deal with pro-abortion Catholic politicians from the very beginning. O’Malley said he asked that question when John Paul II solicited input from bishops for the pro-life encyclical Evangelium Vitae.]
O’Malley: “... I wrote to him [John Paul II] and asked him to please give us very clear direction on how to deal with politicians who will be pro-abortion and will be Catholic. We have not had the kind of clear response that we need.”

LSN: “Do you think something coming forth in Canon Law - would that be helpful?”

O’Malley: “That would be helpful if they did it. But if it is not done – to make it look like it’s an individual bishop sparring with the people of particular parties is only going to divide the Church in a very terrible way. Then you’ll have some priest who will obey and others who won’t, other divisions of the Church, more scandal, and undermining the authority of the bishops.”
LSN: “So you think it needs a directive from the Pope or be made clear in Canon Law?”

O’Malley: “It’s the only way it is really going to work - this isn’t the only country that has this problem.”

Then we have a statement from Archbishop Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura that states very clearly, Cannon 915, which is the Churches instructions on safeguarding the administration of communion to those in public grave sin. This interview was done by Randall Terry last year while this group was in Rome Partial tramscript of the interview will be posted, with a site linking the full interview below:

Mr. Terry: For the umpteenth time, I and the others are asking, under Canon 915 what should or should not be done?

Archbishop Burke: The Canon is completely clear, it is not subject in my judgment to any other interpretations. When someone is publicly and obstinately in grave sin we may not administer Holy Communion to the person. And that, basically, for two reasons: number one, to prevent the person himself or herself from committing a sacrilege, and secondly, to protect the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist. In other words, to approach, to receive our Lord in Holy Communion, when one insists on remaining in grave sin, is such a violation of the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist, so that Communion must not be given to people who are publicly, obstinately, in grave sin.

Mr. Terry: And so does that apply to politicians of any party that are saying: "Yes, it’s okay to abort children" –to kill children?

Archbishop Burke: Yes, for someone who in any way contributes in an active way to the murder of innocent defenseless infants in the womb—children in the womb—from the very inception of human life, this is the greatest of sins. And such a person, until he or she has reformed his or her life, should not approach to receive Holy Communion.

Mr. Terry: And if they do approach, the person who is administering Holy Communion should say, “No.”?

Archbishop Burke: Right. In fact, the Canon puts the burden upon the minister of Holy Communion whether it’s the ordinary minister which would be a bishop, a priest, a deacon—or an extraordinary minister—it doesn’t make any difference. It says they’re not to be admitted to receive Holy Communion. Normally speaking, in my experience, when I have spoken with, for instance, Catholic politicians who have insisted on supporting pro-abortion legislation and told them they should not approach any more to receive Holy Communion, in my experience they don’t. Now, where Bishops have not applied the Canon, often times it’s said that this will cause some kind of disorder at the time of distribution of Holy Communion. That’s not verified. It’s not using Holy Communion to make a statement at all, it’s simply respecting this most sacred gift we have - namely, the Body and Blood of Christ—which can only be received when one has repented of his sins. And I would also make the point—and I believe that it is true that on the contrary - those public figures—Catholics—who are consistently promoting pro-abortion legislation and policies—use reception of Holy Communion to try to justify what they are doing; in other words, to present themselves as devout Catholics, when in fact they are sinning against the most fundamental teaching of the moral law. [Thou shall not murder.]


So here it is, two different versions of the same story, told by two high level prelates in the church and both are Americans and both have been exposed to the ‘pulse’ of what it is that Americans want and expect. One wants to argue that reception of Communion is an issue between the communicant and God, while the other believes there are external factors that should keep one from receiving if in grevious sin.

The catechism I grew up with, coupled with teachings from some of the professors loyal to the magisterial teachings, made it abundantly clear that a Catholic in mortal sin (grave sin now a days) cannot receive communion until they confess their sins and change their ways. There were no exceptions made, and it was incumbent upon the individual, that he also cease and desist in the sinful behaviors. Yes, it is up to the individual to obey the teachings of the church, but the church must first teach what is its doctrine of the faith, then enforce the doctrine. Unfortunately, the church is currently doing neither, and thus, appears to be contradictory and confused in its message.

When examining cannon 915, coupled with traditional church teachings, there really is no confusion on this issue. To receive the body and blood of Christ in the state of mortal sin, is another mortal sin, and a loving church would do well by not allowing one of the faithful to continue in further harming themselves spiritually, as well as adding to already scandalous behaviors. Contrary to many of the Bishops statements that denial of communion is a political and divisive move, it is actually an act of love towards those who are in grave error and need a gentle, but firm hand to guide them back to a state of Grace.

Monday, February 22, 2010


George Offerman

An article out of Life Site News has recently reported that several members of the Pontifical Academy for Life are fearing for the future of this organization, due to the scandal that occurred last year, when the head, Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella openly chastised fellow Archbishop Jose Cardosa Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife, Brazil for outright ex communicating Doctors and other medical professionals that performed abortion on twins from a 9 year old mother who had been raped.


Archbishop Fisichella blasted Archbishop Cardosa Sobrinho for his decision, and Archbishop Fisichella essentially went along with the international media in their condemning the Brazilian Archbishop for his move. This ended up causing great harm not only to the hierarchical position of Archbishop Cardosa Sobrinho in his own diocese, but a greater scandal to the Church at large, by sending a clear message that upholding the clear mandates and teachings of the church are forbidden, if they cause tension and conflict.

Archbishop Cardosa Sobrinho was correct in his interpretations of church teachings, and actually applied the proper Cannons to stop this atrocity. This Brazilian Archbishop was acting in faith and in essence, was chastised for doing so. There is though that this was done, due to wanting to ‘soften’ relations between the Vatican and the Obama Administration. If this is true, it goes to show how sin progresses and grows, as this election is having international ramifications.

Archbishop Fisichella’s ‘selling out’ is giving cause for the pro death camps to have hope in legalizing child killing in much of Latin America, including Brazil. This movement is being spurred on by the Obama Administration and others, with the intent to export our debauchery, and it now has the blessings of the Pontifical Academy for Life. This does not bode well for the pro life movement in general, and specifically the work to keep child killing illegal in Latin America, with the assistance of the Catholic Church.

This scandal continues to reverberate through out the Catholic world, as well as the pro life world. To have the top Prelate in such an authorative position undermine the authority of another Archbishop, as well as the church teachings is an abomination. And to do such, under the guise of ‘softening’ the relations between the Vatican and the Obama Administration, is the largest admission that the Churches teachings are negotiable and changeable, if it is seen important enough to do so.

What are we, as Christians and Catholics, supposed to make of this? Do we begin to make up our own rules now? Who has the authority to teach on issues of faith and morals? Are we obligated to listen to leaders, even if they are Bishops, when they are in error? These are now questions that are up for discussion, and the secular world now has a great amount of ammunition to shoot at an institution, that has lately shown far too many poor judgments and has had its share of scandals. This is only adding to them.

Where is the faith in the Jesus that we preach? Why are too many, in positions of power, staying silent on this matter? Where are the cries and demands for Archbishop Fisichella’s resignation? This man should be removed from his post immediately, and be taught the basics of the faith that he claims to represent. There aren’t words in the English language accurate enough to describe the treachery and betrayal that Archbishop Fisichella has dealt to the faith and the pro life cause. This is one of the moments that the verse from Mark 9:42 comes to mind: “Whoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone be hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea”

Friday, February 19, 2010


George Offerman

It seems hell care will not die, or seemingly keeps coming back in different forms. There needs to be pressure put on the so called republican pro lifers to do something about this, instead of staying silent, as they have for the most part. This is the future of our country we are looking at, and if this goes through, there will most likely never be a big enough majority to overturn this, and most likely, very few in public office will have the intestinal fortitude to even try. As stated before, if this goes through, we will have rationing, and the quality of what everyone will receive will be drastically reduced.

There are instructions at the bottom of this article that give some directions in contacting your representatives and senators. We don’t know how much difference we can make in the few days we have, but if this goes through, we will have plenty of time to regret the lack of action taken when there was a possibility of doing something. I hope everyone has been preparing, because if this is written into federal law, and we are unable to overturn this, in effect we have just signed our own ‘death warrant’ as the blood guilt will be nearly insurmountable.

WASHINGTON, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly is now
reporting that the final health care proposal is
expected to be released by the White House "as
early as Feb 21" -- just three days from today.

Abortion proponents are aggressively assembling a
coalition to ram through a health care bill that
is fully expected to mandate abortion coverage and
government funding of abortion.

With a final version expected out as early as
Sunday, it's clear that abortion advocates know they're on
The verge of having the votes they need to force this
Bill through in a way that is filibuster-proof:

"The most likely way forward is for the House to
Clear the Senate's health care bill (HR 3590) and for
The Senate to pass a package of changes to it, using
The filibuster-proof budget reconciliation process.
That set of changes would incorporate the deals
Struck with the House, which would then send the new
Package to the White House. Obama would first sign the
original Senate bill, then the 'corrections'
package. The last measure signed into law would be the
one that dictates the final shape of the overhaul."

You see, the House passed the Stupak language that
would save lives and protect taxpayers from
funding abortion -- but it was completely stripped from
the Senate version.

With intense pressure mounting for the House to
Just roll over and pass the Senate version, millions of
lives are at stake!

President Obama has refused to address the issue
Of abortion -- and every indication is that he will
Keep abortion funding as a centerpiece of his proposal.

And with the immense amount of pressure that House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid have been applying to pro-life members of
Their party, we must act NOW!

We've been working around the clock to put
together a coalition of like-minded groups, leaders, and
activists to press for Stupak language -- that protects
innocent human life in the final bill.

Now we need YOU to tell that to Congress!


Please contact your members of Congress to tell
them: "Do not support any health care reform bill that
does not include the Stupak language to block
government funding of abortion!"

Here's how to reach them:



We're in the final stretch, and this is when your
Voice counts the most. Let's keep up the pressure and
STOP the Abortion Mandate in Health Care!

For Life,

Stop the Abortion Mandate Coalition

Thursday, February 18, 2010


George Offerman

While the debates rage on about how to deal with the present situations in the pro life movement, very little attention seems to be paid to the theology behind the thought processes and philosophy of the pro life movement. This is most evident in the idea of glossing over the debate about blood guilt, and the fact that God has given very clear laws pertaining to the slaughtering of the innocent, and the idea that shed innocent blood does cry from the ground, and needs to be avenged.

This theology is at best, minimized, and at worst, denied. The idea of blood guilt and the justice of God goes very contrary to what is being taught by most mainstream Christian Churches, and essentially leaves many very uncomfortable if challenged in their lukewarm ideologies, and comfortable lifestyles. If we take a simple and honest look at scripture, we will begin to see a pattern in which God is the originator of law, and the ultimate judge of the law. Throughout scripture, God has intervened in history to stop the spread of sin, when the church, his representative on earth, fails to do its job.

One often hears how God would not judge us, and the Old Testament times are ancient history. This is a great mischaracterization of God’s nature, as He is unchanging, and knows the beginning from the end, unlike us. It is taught from the pulpits and embraced by our comfort and convenience oriented culture, and is quite woven into its fabric. It is too inconvenient to think about God’s Judgment, and most would rather believe that in the end, we all make it into heaven, and essentially, can pretty much do what we want until then.

This is a grave error. Yes, God is merciful, as has been demonstrated by our 37 year track record of failure and compromise, but this is not a permanent condition. God also balances mercy with judgment, which is essential if God is truly pure love. Love dictates the defense of the weak and infirmed, and the innocent. This love can and does include the destruction of the guilty, as is demonstrated in the Old Testament, and in Revelation in the New Testament.

Scripture is very clear that when God’s patience wears out with mankind, He breaks into history and judges. Judgment can take many different forms, but usually, death is involved, and it is targeted at the perpetrators. The problem is that we no longer see ourselves as perpetrators, but rather as sophisticated, caring, non judgmental people, and believe that a loving God will not do anything against us. Again, this is a mischaracterization of God’s nature, and one that very well may be experienced very soon. It is shameful that the church no longer teaches these truths, and would rather allow the majority of Christians to live a life of ignorance and mediocrity than to be loving, and teach the truth.

Those who want to hold to the ‘fact’ that Jesus abolished the law upon his death and resurrection are gravely mistaken. Jesus himself stated “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished. Matt 5:17-18. As we can see, there is still an earth, and the end has not yet come, so all is not fulfilled. This is apparent in the many warnings in Revelation pertaining to Babylon and the mark, and culminates in Jesus slaughter (capital punishment) of all the evil people at the time of the second coming. So for people to make the statement that Jesus is all love, and without a sense of justice, and would and does not judge is in great error.

Blood guilt is a difficult and sobering topic, and too often gets in the way of convenience and comfort, and is dismissed too quickly by the mainstream Christian churches and pro life movement. It is very evident in the fact that incrementalism reigns supreme, and the majority see it as acceptable that the Church and pro life movement does not go for the total defeat of legalized child killing in one fell swoop. This is a lack of faith, but more importantly, it demonstrates the poverty of thought in these organizations, and when the consequences of these actions occur, neither will be ready for them.

Blood Guilt requires expiation, and although it is true that one can be forgiven for sinful behavior, that individual or group must still deal with the consequences of the sin. The consequences and debt of 52 million deaths is still outstanding, and like it or not, we will have to pay this price. By refusing to change the laws and end legalized child killing, we make ourselves co conspirators with the killers, and will be held accountable for the lack of actions on our part. Every day that we do little, we heap more coals on our heads, and increase the price of the consequences. This is theology that is not taught in the mainstream churches, and it may be a very common topic of conversation very soon if we don’t repent and change our ways.

Wednesday, February 17, 2010


George Offerman

As reported on the Les Femmes site, the personhood bill was killed in the Virginia house of delegates committee due to two of the Republicans Delegates Albo (R Springfield) and Kilgore (R-Wise) voting no, due mainly to the VCC’s refusal to support this bill. This leaves a black mark on the two Virginia Bishops, Paul Loverde of Arlington, and Francis DiLorenzo of Richmond. See link:


It is not surprising that either of these Bishops did not back this legislation, as both have had histories of betraying magisterial teachings, with Bishop Loverde having pro lifers arrested fro distributing catholic teachings before the election, and serving communion to baby killers in his diocese. Bishop DiLorenzo has the scandal of Catholic Charities of Richmond taking a ward of the state for an abortion and covering it up.

The personhood bill is about the most effective way to end legalized child killing out there, and the Virginia Catholic Conference, along with the two Bishops, have effectively betrayed the pro life movement, Catholicism, and the efforts of those who put their heart and soul behind the efforts to get this passed. It is unclear as to the exact reason the two Bishops have opted to not support this bill, but it is becoming clearer that these men are not looking out for the best interests of women and unborn children, but their own comfort and convenience. It is shameful that they have disobeyed magisterial teachings in lieu of taking a possibly uncomfortable, but moral position on this issue.

While the two Bishops of Virginia continue to want to hide behind ambiguous statements and contradictory behaviors, it is time for good Catholics of Virginia to defund the Virginia Catholic Conference. It seems the only color these two Bishops see is green, and the only language they understand incorporates the names of dead presidents. So we Catholics of Virginia need to speak their language and see the world in their color and send them a resounding message that ‘enough is enough”.

The language the Church seems to understand loud and clear is the reduction of charitable giving, and it is in this that we the laity have leverage. If the church wants to act in a secular fashion, they should go to the government for funding. If the Church is afraid of losing their tax exempt status and the IRS, then they can go fund raise at the IRS. If the church is going to cave in to this government, with their immoral and unethical laws, then the Church should just make it official and become state sponsored. God’s laws supersede man’s in matters of faith and morals, and if the church wants to play confused in this arena, let them fend for themselves.

When money and funding sources become more important than the integrity of the churches teachings in matters of faith and morals, then it is time to remove this impediment or “god’ from the source of power, and take back what is rightfully ours. The Bishops have no excuse in not fighting for the babies lives, and it is scandalous that they have not supported the personhood amendment. It is difficult to know what exactly motivates them to say little to nothing, but one thing is for sure: it is not biblical or holy.

All of the pushing social agendas by the Church hold no water, when the same body believes that saving babies is minimally equivalent to poverty, economy, health related issues, so called global warming and such. In many instances, it is seen as inferior, and overlooked when their favorite politicians are in town, and they get invited to posh parties. No, there is little incentive to rock the boat, and expect Catholics to act like Catholics, and selling out has become the norm for this group. The Apostles would be very ashamed and embarrassed by the current crop of ‘Shepherds”. Defund them. It’s what they understand.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010


George Offerman

There continues to be demonstrated confusion among many in the pro life movement about means of conduct in general, and the Roeder situation in particular. It seems more and more, there is rigidity in thought and behavior, and what one should do, be and think if pro life according to their definition. The problem is, this formula is not working, and the seeds of defeat are already sown into this.

One has to look no further than 37 years nearly 52 million dead, increases in every type of debauchery, violence and substance abuse, coupled with the deafening silence of the churches, and the very well known strategy of incrementalism espoused by the mainstream pro life movement. Why many continue to argue we are winning, and the goal of the pro life movement is to change hearts and to educate goes to show how out to lunch the mainstream pro lifers really are.

It is very disturbing to see people of high reputation in this movement, such as Gregg Cunningham, continue to go after those who think differently than him, and it is safe to say that Gregg Cunningham would be a mainstream pro lifer. What is disturbing about Mr. Cunningham in his attacks on Randall Terry, then Jill Stanek, is the intolerance for any thoughts other than his. Neither of these people “condoned” Roeder’s killing of Tiller, yet the rigidity is there. No tolerance for any questions or thoughts outside of Mr. Cunningham’s and this goes to show how highly Mr. Cunningham thinks of his own thoughts.

I came across an article written 3 years ago by Neal Horsley, then a candidate for governor for the state of Georgia. In this article, Mr. Horsley goes into great detail concerning the problems of the pro life movement, and how leaders such as Mr. Cunningham actually do harm by confusion they sow into the debate. Mr. Horsley takes it a step further, and uses the term treason, to describe what Mr. Cunningham and others are doing, and in essence locking in legalized child killing as the law of the land, versus really changing it. I will place a few paragraphs from this article below, and the rest of the article can be found using the link after the quotes.


CBR makes it their business to send a stream of trucks--trucks costing millions of dollars--across the nation and the world. On the side of those trucks in pictures ten feet tall we see the dead, eviscerated bodies of little people, people who were killed in the USA with the full protection of LAW, the full protection of the federal government of the USA. But at the same time CBR does that, CBR issues messages to the Christians and others in this nation that unequivocally tell everyone that they must support the government that creates the conditions leading to the pictures on the side on their trucks. CBR issues definitions of "violence" that make it clear people are not even allowed TO THINK ("justifiable homicide is not cognizable," CBR tells us) about treating the babies who are pictured on their trucks the way we would expect every other person in this nation to be treated if they were in imminent danger of being torn limb from limb like those babies.

With this fundamental contradiction in view, is there anybody alive who fails to see the confusion CBR creates?

While it is true that God sometimes brought confusion into the camp of those who opposed Him. It has never been the case, nor will it ever be the case, that God brings confusion among those who live their lives in His service. The presence of confusion within the Body of Christ is ALWAYS a sign that the Body has been invaded by a virus, an alien trespassing agent, an invader that must in time be cut off from the Body unless the whole Body be destroyed.


The sad part about much of Mr. Cunningham’s writings is the fact he uses the term anti abortion in many instances versus pro life, but seems to use this term as a pejorative to those he does not agree with. In his own definition of violence, Mr. Cunningham states it is “Physical assaults against the person or property of people who perform elective pregnancy terminations”. In looking at this terminology, Mr. Cunningham does not even acknowledge human life and the murderous implications it holds. This language, especially “elective pregnancy terminations’ is more Orwellian and soft petals the whole aspect of child killing. I guess as long as one doesn’t acknowledge that a human being is being brutally murdered, we can agree on this ghastly definition.

By sugarcoating child killing with neutral wording, Mr. Cunningham is actually promoting and propagating legalized child killing. It would seem that Mr. Horsley is correct in stating that Mr. Cunningham does not see an end to the “legalized’ piece of the child killing, for if it were so, the child killer could not have a set office, with set times to do set procedures (murders) and be handsomely paid, for immoral and illegal acts. Like crack houses or moon shiners, force would be used to stop the activities, and the perpetrators would be in jail immediately.

Words mean things. When someone of the stature of Mr. Cunningham uses his legalese to sugarcoat the activities of a heinous enterprise, he is only propagating this system, and may want to use whatever defense he may, but my request to Mr. Cunningham is at least don’t claim to do it in the name of the Living God, when minimizing the destruction of his most precious creation.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010


George Offerman

Sometimes there are events in life that require some pondering and make one wonder if what is going on has ‘coincidental’ ties. I have lived in this are nearly 27 years now, and have not seen winter weather like this and to have hit an amount of snow not seen in a century, with possibly 20 more inches later today and tomorrow, has me thinking “What is going on here”. I will give full credit to my wife, Kathy, who first made this connection with the meetings that were supposed to take place on Feb 7-10

We are in the midst of unprecedented weather phenomena here in the Nation’s capital having back to back nor’easters, and according to the meteorologists is a phenomena not seen before in this area. Simultaneously, there is (was) a very controversial and scandalous four day event sponsored by the USCCB in which there were several groups to speak and present on topics ranging from abortion rights, pro child killing politicians receiving communion, same sex marriage, women’s ordination and other ‘progressive’ issues. This story has been well covered and followed by American Life League (ALL), and they have sourced pew sitter. Link below


One would have to wonder if God finally took some matters into his own hands. Looking at the lineup of this event, one could not help but come to the conclusion that this whole fiasco is nothing but stench in the nostrils of God, and of the highest evil magnitude for his church. It seems the Bishops continue to show they are indifferent to the teachings of the Church, and pay little to no attention to the Vatican and what they should be safeguarding. The Bishops seem too preoccupied with their own reputations and seeking approval of those who could care less about the Churches teachings and beliefs. They cannot claim ignorance to this, and are ultimately responsible and accountable for the speakers and content presented.

I don’t remember seeing a time in which the Federal Government closed for two days, the airports closed much of the time, public transportation virtually shut down, and for those trying to drive into the city, no way to get into the side streets, very little parking and absolutely no street parking. And on top of that, more to come, just in time to disrupt the final day or two of this disastrous event. This area is truly paralyzed, and I am very confident that if this event has gone on, it is having the attendance it deserves.

There are many who may disagree with these sentiments, and wonder if God would paralyze a whole region to stop such a scandal from occurring. I, for one, believe He would, and Scripture has many accounts in which God has intervened in the affairs of men to make his point. The question that really should be pondered is: Are we listening?

Most will write this off as a coincidence and see this snow as a nuisance, versus a warning to be heeded. There can sure be a lot worse that could happen other than 3-4 feet of snow to contend with, and it may be a signal of things to come if we continue promoting scandal as if it were legitimate teachings and true ways of our faith. When will the Bishops ‘get it’ and begin to reign in the scandal they are promoting and work on teaching the Faith as it is?

It also makes one wonder how long suffering our God is, and when he may finally run out of patience. As aggravated as many are getting by the weather, how would we deal with an event of the magnitude of Haiti? We can barely handle the snow here, and runs on food and other items, gas and power outages have shown how vulnerable we really are. Would we even recognize these events as redemptive or punitive? Or would we continue on with the status quo, or even blame God for not watching over us?

Any way one wants to look at this, the weather events of the past weekend, coupled with what is coming in the next few hours is unprecedented. The effects of this event will at least disappear with warm weather and we all may have ‘fond’ memories once the hot and humid weather returns. But it would be good for us to ponder how ‘coincidental’ these storms are, given what was taking place in the nation’s Capital, and how scandalous it truly is.

Monday, February 8, 2010


George Offerman

Incrementalism is not a bad word when properly used and when discussing things of a static nature, such as construction and phasing in new projects in which there needs to be a learning curve by those adjusting to the new ways and methods of change. We even note incremental changes in some processes in the mental health field, but I really want to emphasize the word ‘some’. For instance, if I am dealing with a marriage where adultery took place, I do not hear the offended party ever say, “Well, honey, if you can keep the affairs to twice a year or less, I can live with that”.

There are certain areas in life, which are represented by the dynamic nature, such as matters of faith and morals, in which there are absolute mandates that must be obeyed, or severe consequences will follow. It is in this light that we as Christians must make decisions that will guide our actions that are Biblically based, and not watered down or compromised. Incrementalism in Christianity is implementing God’s laws and mandates in ‘phases’ like some construction project, but in effect, making decisions for God based upon our own feelings, or sense of how reality works.

Too many Christians have a horizontal view of reality, in which all emphasis is put into what man can do, and what can be seen versus a vertical view of reality, in which God dictates the terms of life, and we faithfully implement them. There is way more fear of man’s rejection by Christians than of God’s rejection. So, the mainstream Christian is too busy looking at the problem from his own wisdom, and rejecting the clear mandates of the Living God. For many in the pro life movement, going for total victory is overwhelming, and seemingly impossible.

I have heard many well intentioned Christians, including clergy, state that overturning Roe and Doe is not going to happen in one fell swoop, and as such, the real strategy must focus on small victories as a viable alternative. Somehow, I have difficulty believing the Living God is watching this, and giving his stamp of approval. After all, real babies continue to be slaughtered in the most despicable fashion, and is it really God’s view that this is acceptable? Does God create, only to have us destroy? If this is the case, then what number of dead babies is acceptable? Is this really any different than throwing virgins into a volcano to appease the gods? It seems that it is our 21st century version of human sacrifice to appease the gods of tolerance, political correctness, comfort and convenience.

Incrementalism, when applied to legalized child killing, is an abomination to God. There is absolutely no foundation anywhere in the Bible that would mandate such a position, and it comes straight from the gates of hell. This philosophy from the pro life side is an apologetics for wimpism and cowardice. Legalized child killing will never end as long as the pro life side embraces exceptions, and is constantly apologizing for Biblically sound beliefs that go against the modern day social norms, and ‘anything goes’ mentality of most people living in the modern world.

It comes down to the question of what one really believes. Scripture is clear on this matter, and the following verse covers it well. Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven; BUT HE WHO DOES THE WILL OF My Father who is in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name case out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness”. Again, if we believe that the Bible contains the inerrant word of God, and God is abundantly clear that the shedding of ALL innocent blood cries from the ground, and must be accounted for, then it is imperative the pro life movement embrace to word of God and go forth by Faith.

We do not have the right to bargain away life, and cut deals with the devil for our own convenience and comfort. If this belief and behavior continues by our side, we will then reap the seeds and crop we have cultivated, and our convenience and comfort will be long gone, and we are likely to see suffering on a scale unimaginable. The law of sowing and reaping is alive and well, and we are subject to it whether we believe it or not, know it or not, like it or not. The laws of God are not subject to negotiation or debate, and we very well may have this lesson revisit us in the near future.

Thursday, February 4, 2010


George Offerman

I am going to make some predictions. I am going to be writing a new series about an organization, and I, along with Randall Terry, will experience an ever increasing amount of slander, lies, innuendos and possibly direct assault from those that are responsible for much of the poor behavior exhibited up to this point. Issues that should have been resolved in the quiet and privately, have been carried into the open, and it seems only fair that if allegations are made, they should be backed up with facts, and should be done publicly given the allegations had been made public first. It is heartbreaking to have to deal with such matters, when the fight should be with the enemy.

It is a very sad commentary, indeed, when bad behavior dominates the conversation over the issues, and it is actually disheartening when it is coming from Christians who should know better. I’m referring to the past week, in which there have been serious allegations made about Randall Terry and statements he did not make, but many have put words in his mouth. Likewise, there have been very clear statements made by Randall Terry that are totally ignored. Talk about a great ‘switch and bait’ scheme.

I have also come under personal attack by a few ‘disgruntled’ Christians, but I have had many come out of the ‘woodwork’ to support me, and to also give testimony against those spearheading the false innuendos, and threats made by them. It truly is a sad commentary in which these supposed Christians in good standing can make threats to harm one’s reputation, amongst other things, and really believe they are doing God’s will. I, even for a second, do not believe they are doing the will of the Lord, but then again, I cannot personally relate to how someone can deliberately trash, lie and threaten another human being, and then try to justify this behavior in the name of the Lord.

I will pose this to the reader: Is it gossip to discuss issues, such as the Roeder trial, in which one may have a point of view that is different than what another thinks? Is it gossip to point out unchristian behavior, when this behavior is targeted at someone in the public arena? Is it gossip to address issues, when one makes false accusations against another? Are we really supposed to stay quiet, and if so, who is the arbiter of that decision and on what grounds? There have been some out there who do attack, then cry foul when simply called out on their bad behavior. We are mandated to try to settle matters in a Christian format, which includes going to those in private, but when those same people decide to attack in a public venue, the Christian has a right to defend their reputation. In fact in the Catholic tradition, it is immoral to NOT defend yourself, when one deliberately attempts to ruin another’s reputation.

Many have attempted to resolve the issues I will be writing about in the next several weeks in a private and Biblical fashion, and have received nothing back but ridicule, insults, lies and threats. They have been given ample opportunity to resolve these issues in a non threatening way, and I and many others would have been extremely happy to have done so if it was possible. My belief is that these people have no interest in resolving these issues, and seem to be going out of the way to make this as destructive as possible. I also don’t care to be threatened and have others make threats towards those they want to destroy. I also cannot stand bullies, and frankly these individuals are acting as if they live on a playground behind a school, and call the shots by using tactics that put a smile on the devil’s face.

It is a sad commentary that those making the greatest noise about others are guilty of nearly the same thing they themselves are accusing us of. In the end, it will be they themselves that will be found wanting, as a lie can never be the truth. It will be them that will be isolated, insignificant, irrelevant and inconsequential, as they attempt to make themselves look good by ruining others. Wolves in sheep clothing need to be outed, and if it turns out that any of them are maligned, I can vouch that I’m willing to admit to making a mistake, and will do what I can to resolve the situation. However, based on past experiences and behaviors, these individuals do not have the intention to be willing to admit to their errors, and will only intensify their behaviors as they are called out.

So it is in this light that I will make some predications. As I progress with the writings I plan on doing, the attacks on both Randall Terry and I will increase exponentially. I will write about facts, and they will get personal, and come from every angle imaginable. They will write slanderous things about character, and even go to the level of attacking the family. They will throw out information that will be outright lies; they may even go to the extreme of manufacturing stories, images, and even making up fake profiles on sites such as face book, to spin their web of deceit.

But in the end, it is all smoke and mirrors, and they will be exposed for the frauds and pretenders that they are. It will be abundantly clear to the readers that the main purpose for the seek and destroy methodology used by these individuals is motivated by pride and jealousy. They are not producing the results they are claiming, and must use any means possible to bring down those that are getting the job done. What a shame, and all in the name of our blessed Lord.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010


George Offerman

8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.
9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Isaiah 55:8-9

Mr. Gregg Cunningham of the Center of Bioethical Reform (CBR) has written two blistering commentaries about Randall Terry and his “support and promotion of violence towards abortionists”. In these pieces, Mr. Cunningham takes the liberty of distorting what was actually said and then takes it upon himself to insert terminology that does not exist. To make my point, I will do an exercise at the end of this piece and use the exact liberties and language changes on Mr. Cunningham’s piece as he did with Randall Terry’s statements.

First of all, Mr. Cunningham accuses Mr. Terry of ‘condoning and supporting” Roeders killing of Tiller. Mr. Terry certainly does not. I have read every word of Mr. Terry’s press releases, and the gist of the press releases seemed to revolve around two principles: 1) motive for the killing, and 2) the principle of blood guilt.

The first principle is motive, and it is so tied into American jurisprudence that it is presumes motives are major considerations, as is evidenced by hate laws that now impose stiffer penalties if one can determine motives are raced based, etc. As I have posted on my site, there are many, including scholars, who have defended Roeder’s right to present his defense and motives and have them considered, as is the legal standard of this country. Mr. Terry was one of them, but is the only one that Mr. Cunningham has decided to attack. Mr. Cunningham, by your standards, are all of us who demanded a fair trial for Roeder, guilty of “supporting and condoning murder” of abortionists?

The principle of blood guilt is an edict from God, and not a point of negotiation with mankind. Mr. Terry posed this as a question to be contemplated and his writings posed some ethical and Biblical questions that have value in debating. The questions Mr. Terry was posing would have been commonly posed and contemplated about a century ago, before the modern Christian became “sophisticated” and too smart for God (see quote above from Isaiah). The problem is, as Mr. Cunningham is reflecting, too many moderate and well meaning Christians have little to no tolerance for perspectives outside of their comfort zones, and instead would rather water down the Christian message than contemplate judgment or the scorn of their peers. (Wait until God’s judgment appears)

Mr. Cunningham then goes on to erroneously compare the alleged “support and condoning of murdering abortionists” to animal rights and tree huggers committing violence and potentially killing those who don’t support their views. Well, Mr. Cunningham, they already do violence, and it was going on way before Roeder did what he did. Also, Mr. Cunningham, did it ever dawn on you that the CAUSE OF ALL VIOLENCE is the taking of the most innocent of lives? And Mr. Cunningham, what is your personal liability in all of this, since you see yourself as one of the mainstream pro lifers, who has and is going along with the ‘company’ line, and we still have this curse upon us. What have you and the mainstream pro life movement done to end this? Help elect Scott Brown?

You truly give Mr. Terry almost deity status by laying the blame of the potential for increases in violence on him, while simultaneously stating he is marginalized, isolated and a fool. You can’t have it both ways.

It also seems, Mr. Cunningham, that you are painfully unaware that over the past 37 years, homicide, violence against women in every way, child abuse, sexual crimes, the pandemic of substance abuse, the homosexual agenda and advances have all taken root since Roe v. Wade, now do you think there are any spiritual connections to these? Did Randall Terry cause all of this?

It never ceases to amaze me how people like Mr. Cunningham ca represent himself as a Christian, and quote scripture on his behalf to make whatever bizarre point he is trying to make, while bludgeoning another with extremely harsh rhetoric, that he is not willing to use on the enemy. Mr. Cunningham then hides behind the Christian moniker and justifies his poor behavior by then stating how he will ‘pray’ for Mr. Terry and his conversion. Actually, Mr. Cunningham, I will pray for YOUR CONVERSION as you need to demonstrate the behavior you are expecting (demanding) others to follow.

Now, we will look at some of Mr. Cunningham’s ‘double speak” Below is a partial copy of Mr. Cunningham’s post dated February 2, 2010. Link to full post:


“You have every right to bring discredit upon yourself and the organization you represent. But when your self-promotional excesses discredit the entire pro-life movement with reckless theatrics, it would be irresponsible for the rest of us to signal indifference, or worse, agreement, by our collective silence.

There is much more I could say but to the extent that one believer can properly exempt another from the prohibition against lawsuits found in 1 Corinthians 6:1- 8, I do so with this rebuttal. Sue me.

I am more than willing to submit for judicial review my conclusions concerning your outrageous remarks. But in the mean time, be assured that many people are praying that you will abandon the erratic, destructive extremes toward which you seem increasingly inclined.

You greatly underestimate the injury caused by ill- considered remarks which encourage further violence on both sides of this volatile issue. You say "the sky is not falling" but it fell indeed on CBR volunteer James Pullion when he was murdered by an abortion rights extremist whose defenders will attempt to make his trial about the public display of abortion photos in the same manner you tried to make Scott Roeder's trial about abortion. It is clear that you don't begin to understand the forces you are unleashing here. “

Gregg Cunningham
The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform
www.abortionNO.org cbr@cbrinfo.org949-206- 0600

Mr. Cunningham has taken the liberty (and falsely so) of Mr. Terry’s statements about not condoning or condemning Roeder’s actions as “condoning”. No, Mr. Cunningham, Mr. Terry was clearly making the point that Roeder should get a fair trial and have the ability to openly discuss his motive, and have a jury of peers determine the outcome which is normative in American jurisprudence. It is unfortunate that you ignored this and twisted it around or in your own words: You are either being intentionally deceptive or wildly negligent.

Concerning the point of the child killers position of using the graphic signs as a reason for killing (murdering) Mr. Pouillon, the pro life side is already doing this, in droves. In fact, I have seen multiple pro life sites and organizations making statements that Mr. pouillon is the first ‘martyr’ in the cause, thus making a direct link of his death to his activities of showing graphic signs. So of course the other side is going to use this in their defense, but there are potentially two critical differences: 1) Pouillon never murdered anyone, and 2) the biased society and media may very well allow or demand this defense to stand, unlike Roeder. And you know what, Mr. Cunningham; jurisprudence mandates that this individual receive his day in court, no matter how repulsive it may be.

Mr. Cunningham then goes on to make statements pertaining to the need to speak up when the reputation and credibility of the pro life movement is at stake. Mr. Cunningham seems to have no problem making his case that Mr. Terry is unhealthy, reckless, self promoting and excessive, but Mr. Cunningham is totally blinded to his own biases. What do I mean? Well if we follow Mr. Cunningham’s logic to its conclusion, we could say that he, along with the mainstream pro life movement is actually pro abortion, due to the fact that they openly supported Scott Brown, lead by Right to Life of Massachusetts, and all the other proponents of the ‘Great Scott” movement when they knew that Mr. Brown is a proponent of Roe V.Wade. By not ‘Condemning” Mr. Scott’s position, they have “condoned” it, and according to Mr. Cunningham’s logic, now support this position.

Mr. Cunningham has also been clear on the need to speak up if the ‘entire pro life movement is discredited’, and did so with Randall Terry. However, it is noted that Mr. Cunningham has stayed silent on the Brown position and victory, and would have to conclude by his silence on this matter, that Mr. Cunningham does not see this as a discredit to the whole pro life movement and thus signals his tacit approval of this election and position by Scott Brown.

Congratulations! Mr. Cunningham and the mainstream pro life organizations: you are all now pro death and pro abortion!

This idea of incrementalism is a doctrine straight from the pits of hell, but is embraced by the mainstream pro life movement. Where in scripture does God mandate or even allude to incremental obedience to his laws? Who or what gives the right to any human being to determine what policies to follow, when the price of following them is sacrificing babies? The election of Scott Brown is incrementalism, and it is a concession of babies’ lives for the idea that we cannot win. If you believe in what the Bible says, we know we have truth on our side, and it is not to be toyed with, and needs to be set forth by our side, and not hidden from, like it is some dreaded disease.

Again, God’s thoughts are not ours, and it is man’s wisdom that states “we must go gradually” and not rock the boat. This doctrine from hell will bear its fruits, and only then, will we see that it is people like Mr. Cunningham and many in the mainstream pro life movement that have actually marginalized and misaligned others by their faulty logic and double speak. I would rather follow the ‘misguided and extreme” antics of Randall Terry than the pompous, disingenuous and prideful stance taken by Mr. Cunningham and much of the mainstream pro life movement who embrace contradictory and unbiblical positions, on my worst day. We all will be in front of God’s judgment seat some day, and it is his distain I fear, not those who cannot even see the war we are in and then condemns anyone who does not agree with their narrow views.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010


George Offerman

It seems for many, the truth is an elusive and mainly relative thing, that one can make up as he goes along, and apply it without mercy to those he may have a problem with, but will exonerate himself from the same standard he himself uses on the individual or groups targeted. This is especially saddening when so called Christians engage in such behaviors and in essence, give poor witness to those who may be questioning their lives and actually contemplating a change in their belief systems.

Below, is an article I came across that covers much of the dynamics and problems of those trying to bring about truth and have honest dialogues. How many contemporary Christians and church leaders are guilty of ‘stoning’ the contemporary prophets, and why is it that so many other Christians stay silent as this goes on?

Why We Stone Prophets

Posted By Marcellino D'Ambrosio, Ph.D. On January 30, 2010 @ 12:01 am In Touched By Grace | No Comments

“In polite conversation, never bring up politics or religion.” That’s the advice I was given as a child. And it’s good advice, too, if your aim is to be well-liked. Politics and religion are risky because they involve deeply held convictions, and if you happen to tread on the convictions of others, you get the same reaction that a dentist gets when his probe hits a nerve.

But politeness at any cost is not God’s style. The reason for this is that God is love, and love is more concerned about the welfare of others than with one’s own image. So if someone is on a seemingly pleasant canoe ride down a lazy river, love cares enough to warn the passengers that Niagara Falls is up ahead. “But everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion.” Opinions don’t change the fact that going over the falls in a canoe will kill you.

Religious and moral choices are like this. They set one on a course that leads either to a safe harbor or over the falls. Sex outside of marriage, intoxication with drugs and alcohol, honoring Jesus but rejecting the authority of His Church, all these choices have very unpleasant, even deadly, consequences.

So God sends prophets (the Greek word means “spokesmen“) whose role includes warning people that they are headed over the falls. You’d think people would be grateful for the heads up. But often people respond to bad news by killing the messenger.
Why is this? Because the idea that we are basically “good people” whom God ought to appreciate, and that our beliefs and lifestyle are at least as good as all others-these are comforting illusions. When a prophet calls all this into question, we find it threatening and very uncomfortable. If the prophet is right, we have to change, and change always means pain, and we don’t like pain.

Jeremiah and Jesus both are dealing with people who think that they are “good people.” After all, they are God’s chosen people. They offer sacrifices. God is on their side. So they respond to Jeremiah’s warnings by eliminating the source of pain. They throw him into a muddy cistern and he narrowly escapes with his life. In Luke 4, Jesus the inhabitants of Nazareth want to throw Jesus over the hill. He eludes them this time, but ultimately gives his life for those who cry out “Crucify him!”

So if this is how people are going to respond, why bother? Why stick your neck out? Because people have a right to the truth, whether they heed the truth or not. The prophet’s responsibility is to speak God’s word as clearly and convincingly as possible. What people do with that word is not under his control. Mother Teresa was fond of saying that God does not require us to have success; he requires us to be faithful.

At first glance, Jeremiah did not have much “success.” His listeners totally ignored him, the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, and Israel was taken into exile. On Good Friday, it did not look like Jesus had been successful either. But 300 years later the Romans who crucified him were worshiping him, and the lives that had been forever changed were too numerous to count.

We who have been confirmed have been given a share in Christ’s prophetic anointing. If our goal is to be everybody’s buddy, we are going to have a hard time being faithful. The word that God commands us to share is sometimes comforting, sometimes disturbing. We must get over our fear of offending people and love them enough to tell them the truth. Of course, there is always the question of the right place and time. But if no place is the right place and the right time never comes, we can be sure that we are allowing fear of other’s opinion to get in the way of love. Love is not about being sentimental or popular. The love of God, spoken about in 1 Corinthians 13, is tough love.

Article printed from Catholic Exchange: http://catholicexchange.com

URL to article: http://catholicexchange.com/2010/01/30/126626/

Monday, February 1, 2010


George Offerman

As I mentioned in an earlier post, no matter which way one holds Roeder and what he did, the fact that his defense was not allowed for whatever reason, does not bode well for those who fall outside the purview of political correctness, and may soon be used against us. I am attaching a very well written piece by Dr. Monica Miller, Associate Professor of Theology and Religious Studies at Madonna University in Livonia, Michigan.

Dr. Miller, one of the ND 88, writes one of the best pieces on the need to have a fair trial and the need to consider motive, despite the fact it is extremely unpopular and very few on the pro life side want to contemplate. It is a must read, and I am posting the forward to the piece, that addresses the Roeder trial, and encouraging everyone to go to the link posted below to see Dr. Miller’s paper in progress concerning the moral use of force and her conclusions.

From Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D. Director of CPLS
see www.prolifesociety.com
for Roeder conviction another way to access this paper.

In light of the January 29, 2010 Scott Roeder conviction, this working paper (Scroll down) on the ethics of using force in defense of the unborn, is offered for your consideration. My conclusion is that lethal force cannot be justified-- though it is not intrinsically immoral. The point of this paper is to examine this issue with a critical mind.

Here are some thoughts re the Roeder case:
1) According to principles articulated in my paper-- Roeder's killing of abortionist George Tiller, was an illicit use of force--even though his motive was licit.

2) Roeder is not morally guilty of murder. Murder is the morally unjustified taking of innocent human life. Roeder is not guilty of that. He is guilty of an unjustified use of force against an unjust aggressor and so the judge, in the Roeder's case, should have permitted the jury to consider the lesser charge of manslaughter and he did not.

3) The Roeder trial was not a fair trial as long as the victims of abortion were dismissed as non-persons and Tiller's killing of the innocent was never a consideration. And unfortunately since, legally-speaking, no injury is cause to the unborn in abortion--Roeder's defense was, from the start, restricted, unfair and unbalanced.

Monica Migliorino Miller, Ph.D.

Link to Working Paper on the Ethics of Force in Defense of Unborn Human Life


As one can see, Dr. Miller attempts to work through some difficult moral, ethical and Theological issues pertaining to force, and how our faith should guide our actions. The forward also points out how the denial of due process by the courts is also not moral, and may be used sometime in the future to deal with any other issue that the developing god/state will determine appropriate for their desired ends.

Again, the denial of due process is not a good outcome in this case despite the fact Roeder Killed Tiller. In essence, he was tried and convicted before this even took place and it is an ugly, but not unpredictable event that will definitely have bad outcomes for believers in the near future. Look out.